-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 02/23/2012 10:00 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 23, 2012, at 12:39 PM, virendra rode wrote:
I understand this is not true peering relationship, however its an interesting way to obtain exchange point routes and I understand this is nothing new.
<mini-rant>
- ----------------------
I've found people who use the term 'peering' to mean something different than what I personally interpret it to mean.
eg: "We have peering with 4 carriers at our colocation facility where you can place gear"
Translation: We have blended IP transit from 4 carriers, or you can directly connect to them as needed.
I understand why they call it this, because "I configured peering with Level3/Cogent" on my router, etc. The difference is in the policy. What you're speaking of is someone selling transit, which is perfectly fine over various IXes, you generally are prohibited from 'selling next-hop', i.e.: you have to bear the cost on the IX port of the forwarding.
</mini-rant>
- --------------------------- Correct, I meant to say private peering as opposed to settlement-free.
Buying transit isn't as dirty as people think it is, sometimes its the right business decision. If you connect to an IX for $4000/mo at gig-e, you might as well buy transit at $4/meg on that same port IMHO. You're unlikely to be using the port at 100% anyways at the IX, so your cost-per-meg there needs to properly reflect your 95% or whatnot.
- Jared
- ---------------------- I understand, I'm trying to factor in cost of peering (transport, equipment, cross-connect, colocation, equipment cost) of buying transit vs private peering. regards, /virendra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk9GhVsACgkQ3HuimOHfh+HqFgD+L2WYr2Tt1ZRY+Z2AAVDpX00N bwNSXKLbnzjy8Ol5b2QA/AiL3NbesEoZy901tBW7TAdAzPOUK8W9a4rnhRakDk8B =acfM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----